Argument layout:
In the Christian view, God saves us from our suffering.
When God is not saving us from our suffering, They [God] are allowing it to continue.
One would never inflict unnecessary suffering upon someone they loved.
In Chrisianity, God loves everyone.
Thus, Christianity is false. — makayla harris

I don't think these premises are all that strong, to be honest. The conclusion at best would be that God may be different in nature than some versions of Christianity would have us believe.

Take your first premise. In the Christian view God might save us form suffering. But this is not a given. Look what happened to his son. Many expressions of Christianity are predicated on the virtue found in suffering and poverty. The suffering - if it ends - happens through salvation after death. Suffering affords Christians the chance to be better people, to test their faith and to provide charity and it is a part of God's ineffable plan.

But your broader point, which is commonly stated by skeptics is this - why does an all good, all knowing, all loving God allow innocent people (especially children) to suffer and die in their millions?

This might demonstrate some contractions (but not disprove) in a literalist, fundamentalist version of the Christian god. But that's not a difficult thing.

God had a purpose for this person! God saved them for a reason! — makayla harris

:rofl:

Self-serving bias? You atrribute the good that happens to you to your own astounding abilities, but if things start going sideways, it isn't you, it's bad luck!

God's responsible for your happy moments; you're responsible for the rest of your life which is one big mess!

But your broader point, which is commonly stated by skeptics is this - why does an all good, all knowing, all loving God allow innocent people (especially children) to suffer and die in their millions?

This might demonstrate some contractions (but not disprove) in a literalist, fundamentalist version of the Christian god. But that's not a difficult thing. — Tom Storm

This is a very very difficult thing for an aaa god.

'Saved' has nothing to do with favourable outcome in a particular circumstance. Even most Christians don't mean it that way.

Argument layout:
In the Christian view, God saves us from our suffering.
When God is not saving us from our suffering, They [God] are allowing it to continue.
One would never inflict unnecessary suffering upon someone they loved.
In Chrisianity, God loves everyone.
Thus, Christianity is false. — makayla harris

My argument from a Kierkegaardian point of view:
You have to accept suffering. A human being suffers along their way because is one of the most stimulus we live on.
Instead of being "saved" from suffering, you just live according to it. Making subterfuges trying to avoid it, could be unnecessary.
There is no proof that God "loves" us, then you cannot put in their shoulders our weaknesses, as suffering or uncertainty.

Why did you say Christianity is false?

Hi Makayla,

First off, thank you for sharing.

You made some excellent points; however, I have a few objections. My first aims at the validity of the argument. You claimed, “One would never inflict unnecessary suffering upon someone they loved.” However, the word ‘unnecessary’ is not used any other time you use the word suffering. As a result, I find it safe to assume that you mean both necessary and unnecessary suffering when you speak of suffering in the other premises. If that is the case, I can say: one would inflict necessary suffering upon a person they love. At this point, I can conclude that there is no contradiction between God simultaneously loving humans and causing them to suffer. As a result of these concerns, the conclusion that Christianity is false does not follow. I do think, however, your argument can be adjusted. Here is my proposal.

If Christianity is true, then God loves everybody.
If God allows unnecessary suffering, then God does not love everybody.
God allows unnecessary suffering.
God does not love everybody. (MP 2,3)
Therefore, Christianity is false. (MT 1, 4)

This argument has the same conclusion; however, it explicitly asserts that God allows unnecessary suffering rather than any suffering. Another way to adjust the argument is by simply removing the word unnecessary from premises 2 and 3. The question you have to ask yourself is this: Can one inflict necessary suffering on a person they love? If the answer is yes, you need the word unnecessary in premises 2 and 3; if the answer is no, you can remove the word unnecessary. I encourage you to keep the unnecessary, and I will explain why. Premise 2 of that argument would say If God allows suffering, then God does not love everybody. I give the objection that God can allow necessary suffering and still love people. To start, it seems that if something is needed then it should be allowed and in fact obligatory. Necessary in this sense means required to contribute or sustain overall goodness. When one loves another person, they want to contribute and maintain their overall goodness. If there was a case where a person must suffer to sustain or contribute to overall goodness, then a person who loves that person should allow them to suffer. For example, if an alcoholic is suffering major withdrawals, the suffering will contribute to overall goodness in that person's life. It follows that a person who loves the alcoholic should not give them more alcohol but rather allow them to suffer so they can live a better life. God acts in this way as well; he allows people to suffer because it is necessary for promoting their flourishment. For these reasons, I think it is best to include the word unnecessary in your premises. However, that begs the question of whether or not God does allow unnecessary suffering or if all suffering leads to promoting our goodness? I will leave you with that question to ponder.

If God allows unnecessary suffering, then God does not love everybody. — lish

Can you demonstrate that any suffering is unnecessary from god's perspective? How could people determine god's intended business?

Argument layout:
In the Christian view, God saves us from our suffering.
When God is not saving us from our suffering, They [God] are allowing it to continue.
One would never inflict unnecessary suffering upon someone they loved.
In Chrisianity, God loves everyone.
Thus, Christianity is false. — makayla harris

The "problem of evil" argument is one that gets used here often. I don't find it very convincing. Who the heck knows why God does what it does? Unless I am a fundamentalist, why would I think that people who think they know what God thinks or what God wants are right? Everyone, every religion, knows that suffering and death are part of our lives. Even so, the world is a wonderful place.

To be clear, I am not a follower of any religion.

Forgot - Welcome to the forum.